DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:So Slick if we continue down this course and are able to do it, could it have been done already?

who knows......so little of the technology needed had been discovered, much still needs to be discovered. No, nothing in the published record would indicate that we are near there, yet. Not sure I see your point in asking....care to elaborate?

Yes I would. the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Universe is about 13 billion years old. Life started about 1 billion years after the earth was form. Mathematical there should be about 500 million planets in our own backyard, in our own Milky Way Galaxy which may have planets carrying liquid oceans and perhaps even life. Life that just might be more advance than we are. Just maybe one of these advance planets may have seeded earth at it's early stage with the foundations of life. Just as we might in the future seed another planet with the foundations of life. If we actually do this and life takes hold will the concept of a God arise before the concept of science?

Heretic wrote:If we actually do this and life takes hold will the concept of a God arise before the concept of science?

To think life started elsewhere is an interesting idea and could very well be true. However, this does not do anything to discredit evolutionary theory since it is a different topic. Here is a fun article describing how some researchers applied Moore's Law to evolution and came up with an origin predating Earth. And since we are now discovering amino acids in deep space there is a good chance Earth had some outside help forming the building blocks of life. None of this implies there was a divine hand involved, at least not the anthropocentric god of the Bible. If we seed life on another planet and it grows an intelligence used for creating their own gods this is irrelevant to there being an actual god other than being a good argument against.

Heretic wrote: If we actually do this and life takes hold will the concept of a God arise before the concept of science?

You'll be able to get answers to yours questions.
Go in wild an unfamiliar forest or wild swamp one. When you find yourself alone with yourself and nature, you will begin to talk with the true God. When you return to a social society, you will understand the difference between the true God and religion.

Sigma knows the voice of God. Aside from that, considering the atomic and electromagnetic nature of everything, why would you not think everything is completely subject to manipulation? That's what makes us so dangerous. Ultimately, we will pull the wrong switch. What are the probabilities of that?

Heretic wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:So Slick if we continue down this course and are able to do it, could it have been done already?

who knows......so little of the technology needed had been discovered, much still needs to be discovered. No, nothing in the published record would indicate that we are near there, yet. Not sure I see your point in asking....care to elaborate?

Yes I would. the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Universe is about 13 billion years old. Life started about 1 billion years after the earth was form. Mathematical there should be about 500 million planets in our own backyard, in our own Milky Way Galaxy which may have planets carrying liquid oceans and perhaps even life. Life that just might be more advance than we are. Just maybe one of these advance planets may have seeded earth at it's early stage with the foundations of life. Just as we might in the future seed another planet with the foundations of life. If we actually do this and life takes hold will the concept of a God arise before the concept of science?

no way of knowing until it happens, but, highly likely. Humans need comfort in the face of the unknown, and especially, death.

sigma wrote:

Heretic wrote: If we actually do this and life takes hold will the concept of a God arise before the concept of science?

You'll be able to get answers to yours questions.
Go in wild an unfamiliar forest or wild swamp one. When you find yourself alone with yourself and nature, you will begin to talk with the true God. When you return to a social society, you will understand the difference between the true God and religion.

once again, I agree somewhat with Sigma. That is EXACTLY why I head out to the woods and the ocean and bay. I might not use God as the truism, but I see Sigma's entire point clearly.

I would assert Slick, that had not Jesus been baptized and the spirit of God remain on Him, you wouldn't have the luxury. Do you see no evidence of the spiritual?

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:So Slick if we continue down this course and are able to do it, could it have been done already?

who knows......so little of the technology needed had been discovered, much still needs to be discovered. No, nothing in the published record would indicate that we are near there, yet. Not sure I see your point in asking....care to elaborate?

Yes I would. the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Universe is about 13 billion years old. Life started about 1 billion years after the earth was form. Mathematical there should be about 500 million planets in our own backyard, in our own Milky Way Galaxy which may have planets carrying liquid oceans and perhaps even life. Life that just might be more advance than we are. Just maybe one of these advance planets may have seeded earth at it's early stage with the foundations of life. Just as we might in the future seed another planet with the foundations of life. If we actually do this and life takes hold will the concept of a God arise before the concept of science?

no way of knowing until it happens, but, highly likely. Humans need comfort in the face of the unknown, and especially, death.

Even if it happens we may have perished long before this hypothetical planet flourished with life from our seeding and doesn't take away the truth that a higher level being planted the seeds of life on that world or on this planet we live on. If it happen that way of course, after all it can not be proven by science in either case.

flip wrote:I would assert Slick, that had not Jesus been baptized and the spirit of God remain on Him, you wouldn't have the luxury. Do you see no evidence of the spiritual?

no, not really, in terms of an extra-human spirit. However, I do feel the overwhelming awe at the magic of nature. Each to their own.

I keep meaning to write up a nice post on this topic... and life keeps getting in the way.

I'll snipe this: Anyone that claims that their thoughts on origins aren't highly based in faith is delusional. The grand lie of today's pop culture (humanism/naturalism) is that it's somehow based in something other than faith & worship.

flip wrote:Sigma knows the voice of God. Aside from that, considering the atomic and electromagnetic nature of everything, why would you not think everything is completely subject to manipulation? That's what makes us so dangerous. Ultimately, we will pull the wrong switch. What are the probabilities of that?

in my opinion, the determining factor is so highly organized animal existence as a person is still not organic chemistry, and psychology . Religion - is a manipulation . This is both a way to control society and at the same time a way to combine a particular community of people against people of other communities . In my opinion, religion - it is harmful relic of the Middle Ages . Science in this case is much more promising to combine all mankind regardless of their religious beliefs. Science never cause rejection in people of any religion. People curious and always strives for scientific knowledge by its very nature . When normal people of any nationality , beliefs , nationality , political opinion, are together in the face of solving the problem of survival in nature, they forget about the differences in politics and religion , they begin to merge human values. For example, these films worth seeing.
Кукушка
Сны о России
Contact

In America, there are free movies ? If not, in RuNet can watch any movies for free. However, I could not find these films with English translation to give you links to view, unfortunately. But in my opinion , these movies should even buy in a pinch.

snoopy wrote:I keep meaning to write up a nice post on this topic... and life keeps getting in the way.

I'll snipe this: Anyone that claims that their thoughts on origins aren't highly based in faith is delusional. The grand lie of today's pop culture (humanism/naturalism) is that it's somehow based in something other than faith & worship.

sorry to disagree, but facts and proof are NOT the same as faith.

Thanks sigma, I'll take a look at them. My only point Slick, is that the greatest minds have always assented to a higher power of intelligence. I myself do not see how anyone who has investigated their surroundings thoroughly cannot see the precision and design. Ultimately coming from one, tightly packed little seed. Most will admit that at least a higher intelligence was involved, even if they feel he may be impersonal they still have belief in His mind.

flip wrote:Thanks sigma, I'll take a look at them. My only point Slick, is that the greatest minds have always assented to a higher power of intelligence.

not true. Some of the truly great minds have been avowed atheists. The two matters are completely separate, IMHO.

I myself do not see how anyone who has investigated their surroundings thoroughly cannot see the precision and design.

but some of us can understand how such precision and seeming 'design' were merely the byproducts of hundreds of millions of years of constant evolutionary pressure.

Ultimately coming from one, tightly packed little seed. Most will admit that at least a higher intelligence was involved, even if they feel he may be impersonal they still have belief in His mind.

once again, I will politely disagree.

Fair enough.

snoopy wrote:Anyone that claims that their thoughts on origins aren't highly based in faith is delusional.

If you believe the origin of life comes from a creator and this is revealed to you through a holy book and your belief in that knowledge is unwavering, then you have strong religious faith. This is not the same as looking at facts we know about the world and coming to a conclusion based on them, a conclusion that is always tentative. This is belief grounded in established facts until newer facts are known that may or may not change the conclusion. Humanists/naturalists can change their mind. Religious followers are not allowed to. They always get the answers before the questions and are forced to twist facts into their worldview or ignore them completely. Ken Ham's entire creation view is exactly this process. He has accepted evolution (not mentioned in the bible), but compromised it with Genesis and came up with the theory of Kinds where evolution is restrained. This is also why he thinks man and dinosaur walked together. The bones are clearly there so he can't deny the existence of dinosaurs, but the time frame doesn't match a young Earth, so he disregards carbon dating and "fits" dinosaurs into Genesis.

It's like playing Jeopardy:

"I'll take the Bible for $400, Alex"
"Genesis 1:24-25"
"What is evolution that does not cross between class, phylum, or kingdom"
"Correct! Pick again."

callmeslick wrote:

snoopy wrote:I keep meaning to write up a nice post on this topic... and life keeps getting in the way.

I'll snipe this: Anyone that claims that their thoughts on origins aren't highly based in faith is delusional. The grand lie of today's pop culture (humanism/naturalism) is that it's somehow based in something other than faith & worship.

sorry to disagree, but facts and proof are NOT the same as faith.

No "facts" and "proof" aren't the same thing as faith.... but they also really aren't anything more than words we use to positively describe evidence.

Consider how many "facts" and "proofs" have been proven wrong through the ages... most of which were founded in people drawing the wrong scientific conclusions because of their philosophical beliefs. I'm asserting that nothing has changed. You're kidding yourself if you think that the evidence is so conclusive as to make evolutionary origins a "proven fact." You only see it that way because you've suspended your critical thinking on the matter.

I think it's more like a single gene with different portions active or dormant.

callmeslick actually very rightly said that belief in God is sewn into the consciousness of man to protect his mind in case of extreme situations. Even the unbelieving people will turn to God when more hope no one . The funny thing is that when a person comes out of the hospital, he strongly believes that it is not scientific knowledge helped doctors without their professionalism, but that God will help him survive. True scientist may be the only person who even in a dying condition will describe their feelings for the development of science , as did Nikolai Pirogov. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Pirogov
In fact , I once was in a dying condition . When even God can not help , there is Death. You will feel it , you will talk with Death . I assure you , when you have become to communicate with the Death, you will realize that death is not to be feared. Death - good . You will realize that it is ready to save you from the pain and suffering in this life...

snoopy wrote:Consider how many "facts" and "proofs" have been proven wrong through the ages...

well, I just did, and can think of exactly ZERO. Sure, I've seen theories bite the dust by the dozens, but facts? Never. Proofs of theories, that had been repeatable? Never.

You're kidding yourself if you think that the evidence is so conclusive as to make evolutionary origins a "proven fact." You only see it that way because you've suspended your critical thinking on the matter.

I never made that claim, because evolutionary origin of species is still a theory. However, creationism is NOT a viable theory. Literal Biblical timelines are proven to be wrong. Evolution of established species(which when first theorized preceded the understanding of biochemical genetics) is a proven fact. Now, you might get some of these things confused with one another, but I don't. Why? Because I was trained in critical thinking, and sound scientific practice.
Care to try again?

snoopy wrote:Consider how many "facts" and "proofs" have been proven wrong through the ages... most of which were founded in people drawing the wrong scientific conclusions because of their philosophical beliefs. I'm asserting that nothing has changed. You're kidding yourself if you think that the evidence is so conclusive as to make evolutionary origins a "proven fact." You only see it that way because you've suspended your critical thinking on the matter.

Ridiculous. Evolutionary theory is a model that makes reliable predictions. If we later find a better model to make predictions, that still doesn't make the current one useless. All scientific theories are tentative.

Ptolemaic observations of the heavens worked even though they were philosophically wrong. Heliocentric theories of the heavens work better. Newton's laws are still extremely useful even though Einstein's relativity makes better predictions. This is how science works. And to put it in perspective, in none of these cases did we suddenly discover that a model of the god Apollo dragging the Sun across the sky with a chariot made better predictions. Please provide one model of god that can make reliable predictions.

callmeslick wrote:well, I just did, and can think of exactly ZERO. Sure, I've seen theories bite the dust by the dozens, but facts? Never. Proofs of theories, that had been repeatable? Never.

Okay, so we can either get super philosophical... or we can agree that everything in science is really a theory, including everything about evolution.... some very well supported theories, but theories none the less.

I never made that claim, because evolutionary origin of species is still a theory. However, creationism is NOT a viable theory. Literal Biblical timelines are proven to be wrong. Evolution of established species(which when first theorized preceded the understanding of biochemical genetics) is a proven fact. Now, you might get some of these things confused with one another, but I don't. Why? Because I was trained in critical thinking, and sound scientific practice.
Care to try again?

Okay, I'll try it by another angle: The root difference between Darwin and the Bible is random chance vs. intelligent design. All of the discussion about mechanics is a distraction... at the end of the day Darwin (and naturalism) says that we're here because of random chance, and the Bible says we're here because God wanted it that way. So.... Darwin ends up with the unprovable, untestable assertion that either we're a massive statistical anomaly (Luck, you might say) or that you got enough rolls that it had to happen (something extends infinitely) - either way you have to fall back on something that you can't test to explain how we're here today.

So how is your untestable theory and better than mine? "Because we all defined it that way." isn't a valid answer.

Hint: Your best option is to say that origins are a philosophical pursuit, and that anyone who claims that their science proves something about origins is wasting your time.

Except we HAVE proven that speciation via natural selection is a process that occurs...in fact, we've seen it in action! Slick mentioned it earlier, but there have been studies performed on common bacterial strains like E. coli, which because of their rapid reproduction cycles enable scientists to view generational changes in months that would require millennia in animals. (See this article for more background.) What the researchers have found is that mutations in these populations lead to the colonies developing distinct traits that are well-adapted to their particular environments. In one case, the bacteria were able to metabolize a substance, citric acid, that their "ancestors" cannot; in fact this strain breaks a commonly-used medical test to differentiate E. coli from salmonella.

The concept of natural selection isn't one that's left up to raw "random chance," at least not beyond mutations that may occur on the individual level in the population. Its premise is that, in a population with varying traits, the organisms whose traits are better-adapted to their environments have higher survival rates, and so produce more offspring: over enough time, the majority of a population will wind up acquiring those traits. It's the exact same premise as the "artificial selection" performed in agriculture, where farmers will deliberately breed individual plants or animals with desired traits in order to express those in their offspring. The only difference is that it's the organism's natural environment providing the external forcing, instead of humans. The fact that species change over time is an established fact, and the theory of natural selection is an extremely well-tested model that explains the mechanics by which that change occurs.

snoopy wrote:Okay, so we can either get super philosophical... or we can agree that everything in science is really a theory, including everything about evolution.... some very well supported theories, but theories none the less.

sorry, but no, we can't. You will never convince me, for instance, that the Laws of Thermodynamics are theories, or that evolutionary adaptation is a theory. Those are proven by repeated tests and observations.

Okay, I'll try it by another angle: The root difference between Darwin and the Bible is random chance vs. intelligent design. All of the discussion about mechanics is a distraction... at the end of the day Darwin (and naturalism) says that we're here because of random chance, and the Bible says we're here because God wanted it that way. So.... Darwin ends up with the unprovable, untestable assertion that either we're a massive statistical anomaly (Luck, you might say) or that you got enough rolls that it had to happen (something extends infinitely) - either way you have to fall back on something that you can't test to explain how we're here today.

not picking on you, but you are wrong again. Darwin's hypothesis can be tested(see above about evolutionary adaptation, for one component) and further proven by the fossil record, as it is unearthed. The bible is a combination of the unproveable(sheer faith), coupled with things that have been proven demonstrably false.

Hint: Your best option is to say that origins are a philosophical pursuit, and that anyone who claims that their science proves something about origins is wasting your time.

Hint: if you believe this, you truly do not understand the Scientific Method, nor do you have any real grasp on how far we have come in the relatively small timeframe by way of knowledge, proof, evidence and fact.

Yes, I'm again seeing the use of "theory" in a colloquial sense instead of a scientific one. The theory in conversation is a hunch. A theory in science is a reliable model of a system. It's as close to certainty as we can get.

Evolution isn't randomness, though it does incorporate some functional random events. Evolutionary Theory is a beautiful, simple, and elegant framework for explaining the diversity of life on this planet. Unfortunately it explains away one of the tenets of the Bible which is why people have a problem with it. You don't see nearly many religious people complaining about plate-tectonics, which also happens over massive geological time.

With more and more scientist using greed, forgery, and downright lies in their research it's getting harder and harder for the lay people to trusts said theory's of scientist.

callmeslick wrote:sorry, but no, we can't. You will never convince me, for instance, that the Laws of Thermodynamics are theories, or that evolutionary adaptation is a theory. Those are proven by repeated tests and observations.

I'm not telling you that your examples aren't well established and well tested.... but: How long did Newtonian Physics stand as the proven fact of exactly how the world worked? 200 years, 250 years until Einstein came along? You put too much faith in the science that we know.... in reality it only manages to approximate and estimate. With technology and furtherance of science our approximations and estimates get better and better... but they are never provable in a strict sense. Anyways, this is a matter of semantics at this point. My point is that evolutionary science is just as much of an evolving thing (yes, pun intended) as the rest of science... so don't try to act like it's static and finished.

not picking on you, but you are wrong again. Darwin's hypothesis can be tested(see above about evolutionary adaptation, for one component) and further proven by the fossil record, as it is unearthed. The bible is a combination of the unproveable(sheer faith), coupled with things that have been proven demonstrably false.

No, I'm not. People are very apt at drawing the wrong conclusions from partial evidence. A particularly common problem is the failure to recognize the difference between correlation and causation. I'm not arguing against adaptation. I'm not arguing against survival of the fittest. I understand and agree with all of the (very basic) ideas about populations diverging after separation. I'm arguing that it's a massive leap of faith (pun intended again) to go from bacterial strands adapting to all species of the earth evolving from (ultimately) a singularity.

Your deluded to think that your massive leap and the scraps of fossil records and the scientists researching them is anything less than faith. History has proven that people are very good at finding what they want to in the evidence... and everyone always seems to think that they're the special ones who are different.

Hint: if you believe this, you truly do not understand the Scientific Method, nor do you have any real grasp on how far we have come in the relatively small timeframe by way of knowledge, proof, evidence and fact.

Conversely, I think you far over-estimate how far we've really gone. Our technology has gone a long way in a short amount of time.... but we're still the same human beings at the core: faced with figuring out why we exist, what we should live for, and how we should interact with the world around us. As far as origins and knowledge goes we've produced lots of literature about it, but at its core it really isn't anything close to a new idea... it's just a fancy new cover on it.

On the scientific method: I understand that it assumes an order to the way that the universe behaves, and that God doesn't fit into that "order" box. I think that you confuse the application of the scientific method with the practice of naturalism, but they are used practically synonymously these days anyways.

My final thought for the night: You will find that you respond so adamantly to what i have to say because it shakes at the core of your whole purpose for life.... All of the facade about mechanics and scientific method are a distraction, and generally work well.... but ultimately people care about origins because it informs how and why they should live their lives (philosophy)... not how to further technology (science).

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:sorry, but no, we can't. You will never convince me, for instance, that the Laws of Thermodynamics are theories, or that evolutionary adaptation is a theory. Those are proven by repeated tests and observations.

I'm not telling you that your examples aren't well established and well tested.... but: How long did Newtonian Physics stand as the proven fact of exactly how the world worked? 200 years, 250 years until Einstein came along? You put too much faith in the science that we know.... in reality it only manages to approximate and estimate. With technology and furtherance of science our approximations and estimates get better and better... but they are never provable in a strict sense. Anyways, this is a matter of semantics at this point. My point is that evolutionary science is just as much of an evolving thing (yes, pun intended) as the rest of science... so don't try to act like it's static and finished.

But you'll notice that, even after Einstein, Newtonian mechanics are still a useful tool. Newton's theories of mechanics and his law of universal gravitation produce predictions with a high degree of accuracy for most "everyday" objects, all the way up to planetary motion. It's only when we get into the realm of the extremely fast, extremely massive, or extremely small that classical mechanics break down, and we need to turn to special/general relativity or quantum mechanics to properly describe the properties of motion. Even if scientists are able to someday unite gravity and the other fundamental forces in a true "theory of everything," general relativity and quantum mechanics will likewise remain useful tools in their own particular realms, serving as subsets of the larger overarching theory. By definition, a certain theory can never model ALL the things to perfect accuracy, but the theories that have stood the test of time are ones that adequately describe the particular areas where they apply. There may be constraints placed on them as we learn more, as happened with Newtonian mechanics, but it's unlikely that a good working model will just be discarded entirely.

Reading snoopy's post I realize how bad science education is in the United States. And sorry for the hijack, slick...

snoopy wrote:How long did Newtonian Physics stand as the proven fact of exactly how the world worked? 200 years, 250 years until Einstein came along? You put too much faith in the science that we know.... in reality it only manages to approximate and estimate.

Newtonian Physics have never been the proven fact of exactly how the world worked. Guess what? Newtonian Physics is still the thing we use every day. It hasn't gone out of style one bit. General relativity doesn't help people build skyscrapers or automobiles or to help calculate 99.99% of the other things we use physics for. Also, Einstein (and everyone else) knew his theories were not the ultimate answer -- but those theories did answer a lot of questions.

snoopy wrote:You put too much faith in the science that we know.... in reality it only manages to approximate and estimate...but they are never provable in a strict sense...don't try to act like it's static and finished.

Yes, but these approximations and estimates are accurate to truly incredible degrees and no one who understands science believes we are finished. Because of scientific knowledge we no longer need gods to hold up the heavens. We can't use prayer to launch a spacecraft and deliver it to Mars. And with this amazing body of knowledge we have we can do amazing things to improve the lives of everyone on the planet. Believing in God makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside, but religions don't cure polio. Science does. God isn't provable in the strict sense either, otherwise his existence would just as widely accepted as gravity, inertia, magnetism, etc... In fact, I've never seen any proof of God whatsoever.

snoopy wrote:No, I'm not. People are very apt at drawing the wrong conclusions from partial evidence.

If you are talking about evolution, then "partial evidence" is not what we have. There is overwhelming evidence it is true, based on it's predictive powers, which are proven over and over and over again.

snoopy wrote:You will find that you respond so adamantly to what i have to say because it shakes at the core of your whole purpose for life....

Wow dude, get over your over-dramatic self. I have no idea how the universe originated but it does absolutely nothing to stop me from living a full life of purpose, helping other lead better lives. If believing in fairy tales helps you get through life then fine, but don't expect others to believe it is necessary. Scientists are machines of exploration fueled by curiosity and generating wonder as a by-product. Sounds good enough for me!

snoopy wrote:I think that you confuse the application of the scientific method with the practice of naturalism, but they are used practically synonymously these days anyways.

Sure, why not? It works! I'm still waiting on one of you to give me a practical, testable tool provided by religion that makes predictions, preferably one that will replace the big bang theory. Anyone? Anyone at all?

snoopy wrote:[
[My final thought for the night: You will find that you respond so adamantly to what i have to say because it shakes at the core of your whole purpose for life.... All of the facade about mechanics and scientific method are a distraction, and generally work well.... but ultimately people care about origins because it informs how and why they should live their lives (philosophy)... not how to further technology (science).

I think people wonder about origins merely because they are curious. Curiosity drives science, and always has. I respond adamantly because I feel that the denigration of Science, and Science education, is one of the root causes of our national trajectory of decline.

Zealots on both sides.

Attack anything that offends the orthodoxy.

Spidey wrote:Zealots on both sides.

Attack anything that offends the orthodoxy.

sure, but to assume the Scientific Method is an orthodoxy is wrong. The core principle of Science is to question everything, put everything to the test of experimentation and fact-finding. That, you seem to dismiss. Perhaps, I'm wrong, as I'm going by the little you have posted here on the matter.

I do believe slick just attributed at least half of the OPINIONS on this bulletin board to the Scientific Method... That is the big disconnect with most people, I have found--the gap between opinions formed from interpretations of facts derived using the scientific method correctly applied (hopefully), and the facts themselves (which always has a far narrower claim). That in a nutshell is why I tried to do this topic like I did. I believe it's also why it didn't take.

No, I do not dismiss the scientific method, or facts…I just don’t place the faith in them some do.

Example:

In my life I’m always looking for the bigger truths about the universe, and quite frankly I don’t believe science IE: a collection of facts, will ever answer those questions.

I also don’t dismiss the un-provable, I always leave a little room for such things.

So I have a question for you slick…

What are my beliefs in regards to the existence of god, because you made a comment about me trying to raise a “fairy tale” to the level of science?

snoopy wrote:I'm not telling you that your examples aren't well established and well tested.... but: How long did Newtonian Physics stand as the proven fact of exactly how the world worked? 200 years, 250 years until Einstein came along?

The theory of evolution isn't set in stone. We've already had to make adjustments to it, and so it wouldn't surprise me if we had to do it again. But whatever the theory converges to will in no way resemble young earth creationism, a theory that has already been falsified through and through.

callmeslick wrote:Curiosity drives science, and always has. I respond adamantly because I feel that the denigration of Science, and Science education, is one of the root causes of our national trajectory of decline.

Maybe this (and a similar comment by vision) hits close to home for me... because I see myself as walking, talking proof that science and naturalism (or evolutionary origins) aren't one and the same. I'm am engineer, and I'm good at it. I'm not quite a scientist because I'm a bit too practical - I want my work to produce something useful.... but I can act the part of a scientist, and I get a major kick out of tackling technical challenges and finding unique, creative solutions. I agree with you on the decline of the US corresponding to weakness in the sciences and math.... but if you associate that with me and what I have to say, you're dead wrong. I'm one of the people in the US who's doing science... not just theorizing about it from a distance. (I'll admit, my field is electromagnetism, so biology & paleontology may be at a bit of a distance.)

Spidey wrote:So I have a question for you slick…

What are my beliefs in regards to the existence of god, because you made a comment about me trying to raise a “fairy tale” to the level of science?

they are your beliefs.....nothing more, nothing less. A private matter, and nothing that should be taught in a Science class, for instance.

Exactly Slick, only facts should be taught, no beliefs

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:So I have a question for you slick…

What are my beliefs in regards to the existence of god, because you made a comment about me trying to raise a “fairy tale” to the level of science?

they are your beliefs.....nothing more, nothing less. A private matter, and nothing that should be taught in a Science class, for instance.

Fine, but that wasn't my question.

snoopy wrote:Maybe this (and a similar comment by vision) hits close to home for me... because I see myself as walking, talking proof that science and naturalism (or evolutionary origins) aren't one and the same.

I don't think that science and naturalism are the same thing either. But how is that a problem for the theory of evolution?